Search claims · PlantClaims

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Light water stress did not significantly decrease Nei2you6 yield.

Taxon: riceOryza sativat0
Material: Nei2you6e0
Treatment: light water stresse0
Outcome: yielde0
Direction: didn't decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“The results indicated that the yield of Nei2you6 didn't decrease significantly under light water stress”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 201–304

t0
“rice”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 59–63

Title

Effects of soil moisture on superficial roots and yield of rice

Li Hua; Zhang Yu-ping Ganhan diqu nongye yanjiu 2006

Other claims from this paper (10)

Intervention effect Severe water stress reduced Nei2you6 yield by 15.2%.
Intervention effect Soil water stress increased yield of Ⅱyou7954.
Observation Nei2you6 was more sensitive to soil water stress than Ⅱyou7954.
Intervention effect Light water stress slightly promoted superficial root growth.
Intervention effect Severe water stress reduced superficial root dry weight of Nei2you6 by 10.5%~31.6%.
Intervention effect Severe water stress reduced superficial root dry weight of Ⅱyou7954 by 13%.
Intervention effect Soil water stress enhanced superficial root activity.
Intervention effect Root cutting at panicle initiation caused more yield reduction than at flowering.
Intervention effect Cutting roots at panicle initiation decreased grain number per panicle.
Intervention effect Cutting roots at flowering decreased spikelet fertility rate.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Se100 tended to decrease yield.

Taxon: onionAllium cepae1
Treatment: Se100 treatmente0
Outcome: yielde0
Direction: decreasee0
Qualifier: a tendencye0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“The Se100 treatment had a tendency to decrease bulb size and yield”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 563–629

e1
“applied to onion ‘Hercules’”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 240–267

Title

Selenium treatment under field conditions affects mineral nutrition, yield and antioxidant properties of bulb onion (Allium cepa L.).

P. Põldma; Ulvi Moor; Tõnu Tõnutare; et al. DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) 2013

Other claims from this paper (9)

Intervention effect All Se treatments significantly reduced bulb sulfur content.
Intervention effect Se100 tended to decrease bulb size.
Intervention effect Se50 increased total bulb selenium.
Intervention effect Se50 increased total phenolics.
Intervention effect Se50 increased total antioxidant capacity.
Intervention effect Se50 tended to increase yield.
Intervention effect Se50 converted a larger share of total Se into organic compounds than Se100.
Observation Se10 produced the highest bulb TAC among treatments in 2009.
Recommendation The authors recommend 50 μg·mL-1 Se Na2SeO4 for bulb onion.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Captafol did not decrease potato yield.

Taxon: potatoSolanum tuberosumt0
Treatment: captafole0
Outcome: yielde0
Direction: did not decreasee0
Comparator: quintozenee0

Verbatim

e0
“The most effective chemical was captafol, which was as effective as quintozene and, unlike quintozene, did not decrease yield.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 566–692

t0
“potato”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 45–51

Title

Glasshouse tests of chemicals for control of potato common scab

A. H. MCINTOSH Annals of Applied Biology 1973. doi:10.1111/j.1744-7348.1973.tb01324.x

Other claims from this paper (5)

Intervention effect Many tested chemicals failed to reduce potato scab incidence.
Intervention effect Many tested chemicals decreased potato tuber yield.
Intervention effect Captafol controlled potato scab as effectively as quintozene.
Intervention effect Captan was ineffective against potato scab.
Intervention effect Folpet was ineffective against potato scab.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Delaying all N to V9 did not significantly decrease corn yield.

Taxon: CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
Treatment: Delaying all the N to V9e0
Outcome: yielde0
Direction: did not significantly decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0
“Corn yield following a delayed application of nitrogen”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–54

e0
“Delaying all the N to V9 did not significantly decrease yield”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1064–1125

Title

Corn yield following a delayed application of nitrogen

Brian H. Yoder Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) 2018

Other claims from this paper (13)

Intervention effect In corn following soybean, delaying the second half of N to as late as R2 did not cause significant yield loss.
Intervention effect Corn with N applied at R3 yielded 92% of the yield of corn with the second application at V3.
Intervention effect Delaying all 224 kg N ha-1 through V15 did not decrease corn yield significantly.
Intervention effect Delaying all 224 kg N ha-1 through V15 reduced corn yield with application at VT, R2 and R3 (12, 19 and 37% less).
Intervention effect In corn following corn, delaying the second half of N to R3 gave 96% of the yield of the second application at V3.
Intervention effect In corn following corn, none of the delayed N timings significantly lowered yield.
Intervention effect Delaying all N to V12 reduced corn yield by 11% relative to earlier timings.
Intervention effect Delaying all N to R3 reduced corn yield by 42%.
Recommendation Without N at planting, N must be applied by mid-vegetative stages to prevent corn yield loss.
Intervention effect When half the N was applied at planting, delaying application until past pollination caused surprisingly little corn yield loss.
Observation Split-N corn treatments recovered healthy leaf color (SPAD) no matter how late N was applied.
Intervention effect With no N at planting, corn plants could not regain full leaf color or yield if N was applied later than mid-vegetative stages.
Recommendation If all N is delayed, application should be made before plants reach mid-vegetative growth stages.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmixedmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

PP333 could increase or decrease yield.

Taxon: soybeanGlycine maxt0
Treatment: PP333e0
Outcome: yielde0
Direction: increase or decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“PP333 applied could lead to plant height reduction, leaf smaller, yield increase or decrease”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1073–1168

t0
“soybean”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 49–56

Title

Effect of culture factors on growth and yield of soybean II. Effect of fertilizer application, watering, growth regulate measures on yield

Wang Wen-xiu Chinese Journal of Oil Crop Scieves 2003

Other claims from this paper (11)

Intervention effect Seedling-stage fertilizer and watering promoted middle organ growth.
Intervention effect Flowering-stage fertilizer and watering increased upper organ growth.
Intervention effect Nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers enhanced nutrient absorption in corresponding growth-centre organs.
Intervention effect Nitrogen fertilizer increased soybean nitrogen content.
Intervention effect Nitrogen fertilizer increased soybean phosphorus content.
Intervention effect Nitrogen fertilizer increased soybean potassium content.
Association Later fertilizer application tended to raise seed protein content.
Intervention effect Fertilization from initial flowering to 10 days later produced 15.6%～24.2% higher yield than the check.
Intervention effect PP333 reduced plant height.
Intervention effect PP333 made leaves smaller.
Intervention effect Huafu increased yield by 5.8%.

Intervention effectauthor interpretationoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Low combined pest densities did not decrease canola yield.

Taxon: Brassica napus L.Brassica napust0
Treatment: low combined densitiese0
Outcome: yielde0
Direction: do not decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“low combined densities do not decrease yield”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1078–1122

t0
“Brassica napus L.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 78–95

Title

Effect of Insect Herbivory on the Architecture and Seed Production of Canola, Brassica napus L.

H.A. Cárcamo Journal of Entomological Science 2012. doi:10.18474/0749-8004-47.1.44

Other claims from this paper (7)

Intervention effect Intermediate combined insect density reduced canola grain yield under severe dryness.
Intervention effect High combined insect density reduced canola grain yield under severe dryness.
Intervention effect Intermediate combined insect density reduced raceme number and pods per raceme under severe dryness.
Intervention effect High combined insect density reduced raceme number and pods per raceme under severe dryness.
Intervention effect In more humid 2002 conditions, weevil damage at 20 adults per cage was more apparent than in 2000.
Intervention effect At low or moderate densities, late-season pests did not appear to stimulate canola overcompensation.
Observation The study found no indication of competition between the two insect pests.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Halving insect visits caused little decrease in sunflower yield.

Taxon: sunflowerHelianthus annuuse1
Treatment: insect visits were reduced by 50%e0
Outcome: yielde0
Direction: little decreasee0
Value: 50%e0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“little decrease in yield when insect visits were reduced by 50%”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 630–693

e1
“in sunflower”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 208–220

Title

Supplementary material from "Pollination benefits are maximized at intermediate nutrient levels"

Tamburini, Giovanni; Lami, Francesco; Marini, Lorenzo Figshare 2017. doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.c.3827959.v2

Other claims from this paper (5)

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

High-rate controlled-release urea (HN) did not significantly decrease rice yield compared with conventional urea (FP).

Taxon: riceOryza sativae0
Treatment: HNe0
Outcome: rice yielde0
Direction: did not decreasee0
Comparator: FPe0

Verbatim

e0
“As compared with FP, HN did not decrease rice yield significantly”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 370–435

Title

[Effects of seeding-box total fertilization on rice yield and nitrogen loss].

Ru-Liang Liu; You-Hong Li; Ai-Ping Zhang; et al. PubMed 2012

Other claims from this paper (7)

Intervention effect Medium-rate controlled-release urea (MN) increased the two-year average nitrogen use efficiency of rice by 26.2% compared with FP.
Intervention effect High-rate controlled-release urea (HN) increased the two-year average nitrogen use efficiency of rice by 20.7% compared with FP.
Intervention effect Total N concentration in surface water peaked 7-9 days after urea application in MN and HN, versus 1-3 days in FP.
Intervention effect Total N concentration in surface water in MN and HN was significantly lower than in FP throughout the rice growth period.
Intervention effect Nitrogen leaching loss occurred mainly at tillering stage in FP but was delayed to the tillering-flowering stage in MN and HN.
Observation In all treatments NO3(-)-N loss accounted for 59.7%-64.2% of the total N loss.
Intervention effect HN decreased total N leaching loss by 51.8% compared with FP.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Delayed autumn ploughing did not decrease grain yield.

Taxon: spring barleyHordeum vulgaree1
Treatment: delayed autumn ploughinge0
Outcome: grain yielde0
Direction: did not decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0
“Because delayed autumn ploughing did not decrease the grain yield”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 902–967

e1
“grain yield of spring barley”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 628–656

Title

The effect of incorporation time of different crops on the residual effect on spring cereals

H. KÄNKÄNEN; A. KANGAS; T. MELA Agricultural and Food Science 1999. doi:10.23986/afsci.5629

Other claims from this paper (7)

Intervention effect Barley grain yield after legumes was similar to yield after barley despite 40 kg ha-1 less N fertilization.
Intervention effect Autumn ploughing gave good barley yield more reliably than spring incorporation.
Recommendation The authors recommend delayed autumn ploughing for its potential to reduce nitrogen leaching.
Recommendation Spring ploughing could be used except on clay soils.
Intervention effect Reduced tillage spring incorporation of ryegrass often decreased barley yield.
Intervention effect Reduced tillage spring incorporation of red clover often decreased barley yield.
Intervention effect Incorporation timing had no consistent effect on oats grain yield in year three.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The liquid spray did not significantly decrease potato yield.

Taxon: potatoesSolanum tuberosumt0
Treatment: liquid spraye3
Outcome: yielde3
Direction: decreasee3

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0
“Alternative protection of potatoes”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–34

e3
“The liquid spray against the late blight (Phytophthora infestans) did not signincantly decrease neither occurrence oflate blight or the yield”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 377–518

Title

Alternative protection of potatoes in organic farming.

Jaroslav Tomášek; Petr Dvořák Organic Eprints (International Centre for Research in Organic Food Systems, and Research Institute of Organic Agriculture) 2009

Other claims from this paper (4)

“yield decrease”

Claim types

Direction of the findings

Over time

Claim type

Research area

Polarity

Statistics